The digital energy era presents at least three systemic concerns to the design and operation of algorithms: bias of considerations towards the easily quantifiable; inhibition of explainability; and undermining of trust and inclusion, as well as energy users’ autonomy and control. Here we examine these tensions through an interdisciplinary study that reveals the diversity of possible algorithms and their accompanying material effects, focused on neighbourhood-scale batteries (NSBs) in Australia. We conducted qualitative research with energy sector professionals and citizens to understand the range of perceived benefits and risks of NSBs and the algorithms that drive their behaviour. Issues raised by stakeholders were integrated into NSB optimization algorithms whose effects on NSB owners and customers were quantified through techno-economic modelling. Our results show the allocation of benefits and risks vary considerably between different algorithm designs. This indicates a need to improve energy algorithm governance, enabling accountability and responsiveness across the design and use of algorithms so that the digitization of energy technology does not lead to adverse public outcomes.

数字能源时代对算法的设计和操作提出了至少三个系统性的关注：偏向于易于量化的考虑；抑制可解释性；和破坏信任和包容，以及能源用户的自主权和控制权。在这里，我们通过一项跨学科研究来检验这些紧张关系，该研究揭示了可能算法的多样性及其伴随的材料效应，重点关注澳大利亚的社区规模电池 (NSB)。我们与能源部门的专业人士和公民进行了定性研究，以了解 NSB 的感知收益和风险范围以及驱动其行为的算法。利益相关者提出的问题被整合到 NSB 优化算法中，这些算法对 NSB 所有者和客户的影响通过技术经济模型量化。我们的结果表明，不同算法设计之间的收益和风险分配差异很大。这表明需要改进能源算法治理，在算法的设计和使用中实现问责制和响应能力，以便能源技术的数字化不会导致不利的公共结果。